This Halacha is an excerpt from our Sefer
Buy me here or on Amazon.com
Check out our state of the art Online Taaruvos course
In the previous chapter the law regarding removing food from a pot which contains Issur was discussed. This chapter will discuss the relation of this law to a pot of fish or eggs which have been cooked. Should one suspect that perhaps there is an Issur fish or egg within the mixture and hence not remove any content until the pot cools down?
1. Waiting for a pot of eggs [or fish] to cool down prior to removing its content:
One who cooked a large amount of hard boiled eggs [or fish] together in a pot is to wait until the pot cools down [below Yad Soledes] prior to removing any of the eggs [or fish] from the pot. Alternatively one may pour cold water into the pot hence causing it to cool down [below Yad Soledes] and then remove its content.
The reason: The reason for why one is to delay the removal of the food until the pot cools down is because we suspect that perhaps there is an egg with a chick [or a bloody egg or an Issur fish] within the pot, and if one were to remove some of its content prior to the food cooling down, perhaps the Issur will remain in the pot while there is no longer a ratio of 60x versus the Issur, and all the remaining content would become forbidden.
May one pour the entire content simultaneously into another vessel?
Seemingly this matter is subject to the same dispute mentioned in Halacha 2B, and hence according to the Rama and others it would be permitted to spill out all the content of the pot into another vessel.
If one cooked less than 62 eggs in a pot may he remove eggs from the pot prior to it cooling down?
Seemingly it is permitted to do so as regardless one does not have 61x an Issur egg, if an Issur egg were to be found.
Many have the custom to cook an odd number of eggs at a time. What is the reason behind this custom and must it be kept?
When making hardboiled Mufaros [fertilized by male] eggs the custom is to always cook an odd number of eggs. Some are accustomed to do so even today when cooking eggs that are Muzaros. The reason for this is because perhaps one of the eggs contain blood, and by cooking an odd number one accomplishes that there will be majority Kosher eggs in the pot, and by Safek blood the blood is nullified in majority. Those that follow the above custom should make sure not to remove any of the content of the eggs or the water until it cools down, or one pours cold water into it.
2. The law if Bedieved one removed the content of the food while it was still hot and then found an Issur egg or fish in the mixture:
Introduction: In the previous Halacha it was stated that one may not pour eggs or fish from a pot until the pot cools down, due to fear of there being an Issur egg or fish within the content of the food. What is the law if one transgressed and removed food from the pot prior to it cooling down. If one did not find an Issur egg or fish amongst the food content then obviously there is no Halachic query and everything remains permitted. Likewise if one did find a forbidden egg or fish amongst the food and there wasn’t 60x Heter within the pot at the time that it was cooked then everything is forbidden. The question however applies in a case that one found an Issur egg or fish amongst the content and there was 60x within the pot at the time of cooking. If one poured out the content and then found the Issur fish or egg do we say that the Issur was the first food that was poured out and hence everything remains permitted? Or do we say that the Issur was on the bottom of the pot and hence when the Heter remaining in the pot became less then 60x the Issur due to the pouring, then all that remaining Heter becomes forbidden? This matter is disputed amongst Rishonim and Poskim as will be explained. There is also a difference of law regarding whether one poured out the content of the pot simultaneously, or one poured it out in two pouring or more, or one only poured out the liquid, or one used a spoon to remove the food a little at a time. In order to clarify this Halacha properly we have first brought down the opinions of the Rishonim as explained in the Shach and Taz. Afterwards the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch and the difference of cases are recorded.
*Important note: Regarding if today’s eggs that contain blood are defined as Issur eggs-see Q&A!
Summary of opinions of Rishonim:
*Important note: For the reasons and explanations behind the opinions of the Rishonim please refer to the opinions of the Shulchan Aruch brought next in which their opinions are explained in length.
All fish or eggs are forbidden: Whether one poured out the fish or eggs in two pouring or one first poured out the liquid and then the food, all the fish and eggs are always forbidden as we suspect the Issur was on the bottom of the pot and hence after the first pouring the remaining food no longer contained 60x and became forbidden. When this remaining food is then poured onto the food that was removed with the first pouring it then forbids that food and hence all the food is forbidden.
Example 1: If one cooked 150 small fish and then poured 100 fish out of the pot onto a plate. One then poured the remaining 50 fish onto that plate that contains the 100 fish. One then found an Issur fish amongst those 150 fish. We assume the Issur fish was in the group of 50 that was removed in the second pouring and hence those 50 fish became forbidden due to lack of 60x. These 50 fish in turn prohibit the 100 fish that were poured out onto the plate.
Example 2: One poured out all the liquid from the pot and then found an Issur fish. We suspect the Issur was on the bottom and it hence prohibits the fish that are near it which in turn prohibits the rest of the fish. [See C]!
- Rabbeinu Baruch author of Sefer HaTerumah:
Fish-Permitted: In a case that one only poured out the liquid and left all the fish in the pot and an Issur fish was found within the pot everything remains permitted. In a case that one poured out the liquid together with the fish in two pourings then the Shach explains that according to Rabbeinu Baruch everything is forbidden a peels worth. However the Taz and Rashal explain that according to Rabbeinu Baruch even in such a case everything remains permitted.
Eggs-Forbidden: According to Rabbeinu Baruch by eggs we are stringent and forbid all the eggs.
- Rabbeinu Shimshon:
Fish-Permitted: In all cases all the fish remains permitted as we assume the Issur fish was on top and was hence poured out with the first pouring which contained majority of the fish, and there was hence 60x.
Eggs: The Rama, Taz and Rashal learn that Rabbeinu Shimshon permits even eggs in the above cases. However the Shach argues that by a case of eggs Rabbeinu Shimshon agrees to Rabbeinu Baruch that the eggs are forbidden.
The ruling of Shulchan Aruch
A. Poured out the food in two separate times while it was still hot:
The Case-Pouring out two times: If one poured out some of the fish or eggs from the pot while it was still hot and then poured out the remainder while still hot, and found an Issur egg or fish within the food, is the food Kosher if it had 60x in the pot? This case is subject to the dispute brought below. If one however poured out the entire content simultaneously then according to the Rama and other Poskim according to all the food is permitted if in total it contained 60x the Issur. [See next case!] If there is doubt as to whether the food was poured out in one time or two times then we assume it was poured out in two times and is hence subject to the dispute below. The following is the dispute recorded by the Rama:
First opinion: There are opinions which rule that the entire mixture is forbidden even if there is more than 60x of Heter versus Issur. Nonetheless the pot itself remains Kosher. [However the Mahril rules that even the pot itself may not be used until 24 hours have passed.]
Second Opinion: There are opinions which rule that the food and the pot remain Kosher if it contains 60x the Issur. The reason is because one cannot forbid a food due to mere assumptions that perhaps the Issur was towards the bottom of the pot and hence was poured out when there was no longer 60x Heter versus it. Rather we assume the Issur came out with the first pouring in which there was still 60x versus the Issur.
The Final Halacha:
Rules like Rabbeinu Shimshon-Always permitted: The Rama concludes that the main opinion follows the lenient opinion and hence everything remains permitted if there was 60x Heter versus the Issur. [The Michaber likewise agrees with this ruling that Bedieved the food remains Kosher.]
- Taz; Rashal: Rules like Rabbeinu Baruch-Eggs forbidden, Fish permitted: The Rashal and Taz rule that by a case involving eggs we follow the stringent opinion and hence if one found an Issur egg within the mixture everything is forbidden. However by a case involving fish we follow the lenient opinion that if an Issur fish was found in the mixture everything is permitted if the first pouring contains 60x the liquid of the second pouring.
Rules like Rabbeinu Baruch: The Shach brings down the opinions of the Rishonim in this matter [see summary of opinions] and concludes that by eggs we are stringent. Regarding fish the Shach learns that Rabbeinu Baruch is only lenient in a case that one first poured out all the liquid [see C] however in the case here that the food and liquid were poured out in two times according to Rabbeinu Baruch all the fish would be forbidden a peels worth.
Shach’s explanation of opinion of Rama: The Shach brings down the opinion of the Rama which rules that in all cases, even by eggs we are lenient. The Shach lengthens in defense of the opinion of the Rama and how in truth there is no contradiction between the Rama and other Rishonim, as the Rama only permits a case of Min Bemino.
B. Poured out all the food while hot in one time:
If one poured out the entire content simultaneously [in one pouring] then according to the Rama and other Poskim there is no dispute in such a case and thus the food is permitted according to all if in total it contained 60x the Issur. The Bach however rules that the above dispute [in A] is applicable even in a case that the food was poured out simultaneously. If there is doubt as to whether the food was poured out in one time or two times then we assume it was poured out in two times and is hence subject to the dispute in A.
C. Poured out only the liquid of the eggs or fish and all the food remained in the pot until it cooled down:
This case has the same disputes and rulings of the previous cases in which one poured out the food. Thus if the liquid was poured out in two pouring, such as one poured most the liquid out the first time and later poured out the remaining liquid, then it is subject to the dispute mentioned in A. If however one poured all the liquid out simultaneously then it is subject to the dispute in B.
Poured out only Liquid and then found Issur in food in pot
Poured food and liquid together in two times
3. The law if one removed the eggs or fish with a spoon:
A. The general law of using a spoon that absorbed Issur taste:
If one used a spoon to remove an Issur egg or fish or other Issur from a hot Keli Rishon, the spoon becomes forbidden and one thus may not continue using this spoon to remove the remainder of the food until the spoon is Kashered. [This applies even if the spoon contains 60x the Issur.]
Bedieved if one continued using the spoon: If one went ahead and continued to use the now forbidden spoon to remove the remaining eggs or fish then one requires 60x the Issur within the eggs or fish. One does not need to measure 60x versus the spoon, even if the spoon is larger than the Issur. [However this only applies if the spoon is not made of earthenware and was new or was not Ben Yomo when used with the Issur. If however the spoon was made of earthenware, or was Ben Yomo when used with the Issur then one must measure 60x versus the spoon. In all cases that the spoon is smaller than the fish one only needs to measure 60x versus the spoon.]
If the spoon had a piece of food stuck to it: If some of the Issur remained on the spoon together with some Heter food and was then reinserted [i.e. both the spoon and this Heter] into the Heter, one requires 60x also versus the Heter food that was stuck to the spoon. [However one does not need 60x versus the spoon.]
B. The law if one removed all the eggs or fish with a spoon and only discovered the Issur after all the food was removed:
Case: If one removed eggs or fish from a hot pot using a spoon and then found an Issur egg or fish amongst the content that was removed what is the law of the food? Does the dispute mentioned in the previous cases apply here as well? Do we assume the Issur was removed first and thus the spoon gave Issur taste to all the other eggs and fish, or do we assume the Issur was removed last and hence all the fish and eggs are permitted?
The Law: In such a case all the eggs and fish are forbidden even according to the lenient opinion above [Rabbeinu Shimshon] as we suspect that one removed the Issur with the spoon prior to removing the Heter consequently forbidding the spoon. Now when one then proceeded to take out each egg or fish with the forbidden spoon they all become forbidden.
What is the definition of an Issur egg? Do the above laws apply even if blood was found in the eggs?
An Issur egg refers to an egg with a chick, or an egg with blood in an area that one knows for certain is Biblically forbidden [see chapter 66]. If the blood is in an area that is only Rabbinically forbidden then some Poskim rule we are lenient to permit all the other eggs, while others rule the same law applies.
The practical ruling today: Today’s eggs are considered Mufaros [non-fertilized] and hence their blood is only forbidden due to Maaras Ayin. Thus in all cases that a blood is found today in an egg we only discard that egg while the remainder is permitted even if one does not have 60x.
4. One found a fly in his soup:
If one finds a fly or other repulsive item in his soup, he is to remove the fly and the soup remains permitted even if it does not contain 60x.
Although there are those opinions which rule stringently [that flies do give good taste to food and one thus needs 60x] nevertheless the custom is to be lenient and so is the main opinion, and one may not swerve from this custom.
- Shach:One is to be stringent and require 60x the fly unless the case involves a great loss or time of need in which case one may be lenient. Regarding if a fly was found in vinegar or beer one must be stringent in all cases to require 60x.
- Final Ruling:
The Peri Megadim concludes that the final Halacha and practical worldly custom follows the opinion of the Michaber and Rama that one does not require 60x versus a fly. Nevertheless one who is stringent is blessed.
 Michaber 107/1
 Rama ibid adds the same applies regarding fish
 Taz 107/5, however see Pleisy 66/3 that rules by eggs with blood we apply the rule of nullification in majority. See Q&A below!
 Hakashrus 12/31
 Rama 66/4; Vetzaruch Iyun from Taz 107/5 that rules that this does not apply by hard boiled eggs being that we see the egg that contains the blood, and hence 60x is required. However see Pleisy 66/3 that rules this applies to even hard boiled eggs.
 Hakashrus chapter 12 footnote 64
This is done in order to verify that one retains a majority of Kosher eggs versus a possible Issur egg until the food has cooled down.
 Rama 107/1
 If the Issur was within the first pouring everything remains permitted as we assume that the first pouring always contains 60x the Issur.
 Based on Shach 107/1 and Taz 107/4
 Based on Shach 107/1
 The reason is because even if the Issur was on bottom and some liquid remained thus prohibiting all the fish and eggs that are within the liquid, nevertheless the Issur and the fish or eggs which it prohibited are nullified in majority to the other pieces that are above the liquid and remain Kosher. The reason why the pieces above the liquid do not become forbidden is because according to Rabbeinu Baruch an Issur Balua cannot prohibit without liquid. Thus only the fish or eggs within the remaining liquid could have received Issur taste, and since this is the minority they are nullified in 60x. [Shach 107/1]
 Meaning first he poured most the liquid with most the fish and then poured the rest of the liquid with the rest of the fish.
 As the remaining liquid in the pot is certainly forbidden if the Issur was there and pouring has the ability to prohibit a peels worth. [Shach ibid]
The Shach ibid brings that the Rama and Beis Yosef explain the dispute of the Riva and Rabbeinu Baruch apply even in a case that one poured the liquid together with the food in two pouring, and hence even in this case Rabbeinu Baruch would permit it. The Rama in Toras Chatas however explains that this only applies if one spilled out the remaining liquid prior to pouring the food the second time, and hence since there was no more liquid in the pot, the food of the first pouring remains Kosher and the food of the second pouring then becomes nullified to it. However according to the Beis Yosef even in a case that liquid remained in the pot during the second pouring everything remains permitted. The Shach concludes however that the Beis Yosef must mean that it is only forbidden a Kelipa worth. [However according to the Taz brought next one can explain the Beis Yosef and Toras Chatas literally.]
 Perek Gid Hanashe 44
 As we assume that by fish there is 60x within the first pouring versus the liquid that is poured during the second pouring. Hence it is not even forbidden a peels worth. [Accordingly the ruling of the Beis Yosef and Toras Chatas that in such a case all the food remains permitted can be taken literally, unlike the ruling of the Shach which says they mean to say it requires a peel’s worth.] Nevertheless if there isn’t 60x within the first pouring versus the liquid of the second pouring then everything requires a Kelipa. [Taz ibid]
 As we suspect the Issur egg was on the bottom and there isn’t majority of Kosher eggs versus the eggs that received Issur taste as it is not common to cook many eggs together. [Taz ibid]
 Since it is not common for there to be 60x versus the Issur and the entire basis of the allowance of Rabbeinu Shimshon is because we assume the Issur was poured out with 60x Heter.
 Rama 107/1
 Taz 107/3; Peri Megadim 107 M.Z. 3
 Smag and Aruch in name of Riva, first opinion in Rama
 The Reason why all the food is forbidden even if it contains 60x: As we suspect that perhaps the Issur egg or fish was on the bottom of the pot and was hence removed with the second pouring. Now due to the first pouring of the fish or eggs that were on top of the Issur there no longer remains in the pot 60x the Issur and hence since the food is still hot the Issur forbids that remainder of food that came out with the second pouring. Furthermore even the food that was poured out in the first pouring [when there still was 60x the Issur] becomes forbidden being that one poured the remainder of now Issur food onto them. This pouring of Issur now forbids the entire mixture. [Rama ibid] Regarding why the food of the first pouring becomes forbidden despite it being only an Iruiy Keli Rishgon, the Peri Megadim [107 M.Z. 2] explains that perhaps it means to say they become forbid a peels worth, or completely according to those stringent by a Davar Gush.
 The reason why the pot remains Kosher: As there is a rule that we do not revoke an item from its Kosher status [Chezkas Kashrus] based on a mere assumption. [This concept is called “Mamimdim Hakeli Al Chezkaso”]
 Shach 107/2
 Rebbe Shimshon brought in Tur, second opinion in Rama
 Rabbeinu Shimshon
 In Toras Chatas the Rama explains the reason why we are lenient in all cases is because it is a Rabbinical doubt [as Min Bemino Biblically only requires majority] and hence we are lenient just like in a case that a pot spilled and is no longer measureable. However the Taz [107/4] questions this reasoning of the Rama saying that here it is a case of Eino Mino and hence 60x is required Biblically. The Shach [107/1] however explains based on this that in truth there is no dispute between the Rama and the other Poskim as the Rama holds that only in a case of Min Bemino do we rule that everything is permitted.
 Taz 107/1 in name of Toras Chatas Klal 51 derived from the fact the Michaber does not write that if one does not follow his directive the food is forbidden. This implies that the Michaber’s entire ruling was only said regarding Lechatchilah. [Taz ibid]
 107/4-5 as rules Rabbeinu Baruch; Hagahos Sheid; Tashbatz; Bach; Issur Viheter; Rashal
 Gid Hanashe 44
 The reason of the Taz and Rashal: They rule like Rabbeinu Baruch that by eggs since it is not common to cook many eggs to the point that one has majority over the eggs that became forbidden therefore even when one does cook a lot of eggs we prohibit the mixture. [Taz 107/5; Meaning that since we assume the Issur was on the bottom and was poured with the second pouring therefore everything that remained with the second pouring became forbidden. Now, when this second pouring is poured onto the eggs of the first pouring we assume that the eggs of the first pouring don’t have majority over the eggs of the second pouring as it is not common to cook so many eggs at a time. For this reason even if one does have majority eggs in the first pouring we nevertheless forbid the mixture.] However by fish which are common to cook many at a time we assume that the fish within the first pouring contains majority over the fish that became prohibited in the second pouring.
 If however the first pouring does not have 60x versus the liquid remaining in the second pouring then according to the Taz and Rashal the entire mixture is forbidden.
 See summary of opinion of Rabbeinu Baruch brought previously.
 Perisha in his explanation of the case of the Tur; Beis Yosef as explained by Bach; So is also evident from Taz 107/3; Peri Megadim 107 M.Z. 3;
 The Rama writes that the suspicion only applies if one did not pour out the food in one time. If however one poured out the food in one time then everything remains permitted [if there was 60x as there was never a time that the Issur food remained disconnected from the 60x Heter].
 In his explanation of the case in the Tur. The Bach proves that the Tur also agrees with his understanding that the dispute applies even by a single pouring.
 The Reason why according to the stringent opinion all the food is forbidden even if it was poured out in one pouring: As we suspect that perhaps the Issur egg or fish was on the bottom of the pot and hence due to the pouring of the fish or eggs that were on top of the Issur there was a period of time that the pot no longer contained 60x the Issur. Now since the food was still hot the Issur forbids that remainder of food that no longer contains 60x the Issur. Furthermore even the food that was poured out in the beginning [when there still was 60x the Issur] becomes forbidden being that one poured the remainder of now Issur food onto them. This pouring of Issur now forbids the entire mixture.
 Taz 107/3; Peri Megadim 107 M.Z. 3
 See Shach 107/1; Chavas Daas Biurim 107/2 which rules that this case is subject to the same dispute.
The Taz [107/2] brings the Issur Viheter which rules that if one poured out the liquid while the pot was still hot and left the food inside and an Issur egg was found then everything is forbidden due to that perhaps the Issur egg was on the bottom of the pot and now that there is no water, the taste of this Issur egg is no longer nullified in 60x. This Issur egg thus transfers Issur taste to the eggs that are touching it. Those eggs in turn transfer the Issur taste they received to the eggs that are touching them and hence everything is forbidden. [Taz ibid]
The Shach 107/1 and Chavos Daas ibid explains that the entire ruling here of the Issur Viheter is only in accordance to the opinion of Ravaya. However according to Rabbeinu Baruch everything remains permitted as the Issur egg or fish is nullified in majority and does not have ability to transfer taste without liquid. Accordingly the Ravaya must hold that taste transfers even without liquid and hence all the eggs become forbidden.
Is there a difference in this case if one poured out the liquid in one time or in two times? It does not state whether the case refers to that one poured all the water out simultaneously or one after the other. The Bach on the Tur learns that the ruling of Issur Viheter applies even if one poured out all the liquid simultaneously, while the Perisha and Beis Yosef learn it only applies if one poured out the liquid in two pouring. The Peri Megadim [107 M”Z 2] learns this case of the Issur Viheter that the food should always be forbidden, whether one poured out simultaneously or in two pouring. The reason is because if it was poured out in two pouring we suspect the Issur was on bottom and when one put the pot back down after the first pouring any remaining liquid caused transference of taste from the Issur egg to the other eggs. Likewise we forbid even a case that it was all poured out simultaneously being that perhaps the Issur was on top and thus due to the pouring of the water the Issur did not have 60x within the liquid. [Meaning that if the Issur was on top then while pouring [in which the pot is turned upside down] the Issur eventually remained with a small amount of liquid.]
 However see Peri Megadim in the previous footnote.
 Rama 107/2
 Shach 107/4; as we do not rule that a vessel nullifies an Issur taste in 60x. [ibid]
 In this case it is only possible for the spoon to be considered new or not Ben Yomo if it was not stuck into the food when it removed the Issur, and rather the Issur was on top and was the first and only food removed with the spoon. If however it was used to mix the food or even entered into the bottom of the food and then removed the Issur, it is considered Ben Yomo. [See Peri Megadim 107 S.D. 5]
 As the absorbed taste within the spoon has become Chanan according to the Rama.
 Shach 107/5 based on Toras Chatas Klal 51; Rama 98/5
 Tzaruch Iyun as to what this “also” is coming to include as in the next footnote it is explained that one only requires 60x versus the largest of the two [the Chanan Heter or Issur] and not both combined. Perhaps one can say it comes to include the spoon, although the Shach explicitly writes it does not include the spoon. Thus seemingly one must conclude that in truth one only needs 60x versus the larger food [either the Heter or Issur] and the term “also” does not mean that one needs 60x versus both the Issur and Chanan Heter put together, but that one requires to measure 60x versus each one individually and obviously if one has 60x versus the larger food he has 60x versus the smaller food. Thus the word also is coming to teach that one must measure versus the larger of the two foods, and not just versus the Issur as was the rule in the previous case.
 The reason for this is because the attached Heter became Chanan when it was stuck to the spoon together with the Issur [Rama ibid] as the spoon is considered like a Keli Rishon which has ability to cook. [Shach 107/7 in name of Issur Viheter] Thus now that this Chanan food is reinserted into the food one requires 60x also versus this Heter.
Vetzaruch Iyun as to what the case is here, as if the Heter that was attached to the spoon is smaller than the Issur then there is no ramification in whether we consider the attached Heter as Chanan or not as either way one requires 60x the Issur, as the Rama stated earlier. Now if the pot has 60x the Issur certainly it has 60x the Chanan Heter if the Heter is smaller than the Issur. [The Chanan Heter and Issur do not join up to require 60x versus them collectively being that they are not the same taste. On the contrary they actually help nullify each other’s taste as explained in the end of Chapter 98] Thus one must conclude that the Heter is larger than the Issur, and hence one requires only 60x versus the Chanan Heter. [As here we apply the same logic that if it has 60x the large Chanan Heter certainly it has 60x versus the small Issur, and as said before the Issur and Chanan Heter do not combine.] This is then the understanding behind what the Shach writes in 107/6 “one requires 60x the Chanan Heter if it is larger than the Issur”. However Tzaruch Iyun on the wording of the Rama which writes “also versus the Chanan Heter” hence implying one requires 60x versus both the Heter and Issur. See previous footnote!
 Shach 107/6 deduces from the Rama that one does not require 60x versus the spoon as we are already measuring versus the amount of Issur that the spoon absorbed. However he asks on the Rama that perhaps the spoon has absorbed some of the Heter taste and hence this Heter taste also becomes Chanan. Thus one should require 60x versus both the remaining Chanan Heter plus the spoon put together. The Peri Megadim [107 S.D. 6] strengthens this question and says in all cases one should require 60x versus the spoon as the spoon was stuck into the pot of Heter food and now absorbed its taste.
The Yad Yehuda answers the question of the Shach by saying that since we know how much Heter the spoon lifted up together with the Issur, and we are measuring 60x versus this amount of Heter therefore there is no need to measure also versus the spoon.
 Taz 107/5
 Taz 107/5; Toras Chatas and Issur Viheter Klal 51
 Vetzaruch Iyun as according to Rabbeinu Shimshon the entire idea is that we always assume the situation was in a way that there is no prohibition involved. Hence in this case we should assume the Issur was on bottom, and hence none of the fish were ever removed with the Issur spoon.
The Peri Megadim [107 M.Z. 5] explains as follows: Either way in this case the food is forbidden. If one says the Issur was on top then the spoon became forbidden right away and hence forbade the remaining food that was removed with it. If one says the Issur was on bottom, then as soon as enough eggs or fish was removed with the spoon so the remainder does not contain 60x the Issur, then all the food becomes forbidden. Hence according to everyone no matter where the Issur was there was a point that it forbade the other Heter.
 Pleisy 66/3
 Taz 107/5
 See 66/7; Mahrsham 66/7; Igros Moshe 1/36; Minchas Yitzchak 1/106; 4/56-3; Hakashrus 12/35 and footnote 68
 Michaber ibid; The reason for this is because the taste of repulsive items do not prohibit a food. [Michaber ibid as explained in length in chapter 103]
 Rama ibid
 107/7; Peri Megadim 107 S.D. 3 and 7
The Shach brings that many Rishonim and Poskim rule that flies do give good taste to food and hence 60x is required. Furthermore the Issur Viheter Klal 27 writes that this is the custom and so writes the Maharam Padvah and Mahrshal. The Shach however concludes that in a case of great loss or time of need even they agree one may be lenient.
 Peri Megadim 107 S.D. 3 and 7
Leave A Comment?
You must be logged in to post a comment.